781 Fed.Appx. 553 (7th Cir. 2019), 19-1761, United States v. Sullivan
|Citation:||781 Fed.Appx. 553|
|Party Name:||UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Larry D. SULLIVAN, Defendant-Appellant.|
|Attorney:||Laura A. Przybylinski Finn, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee Larry D. Sullivan, Pro Se|
|Judge Panel:||Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge|
|Case Date:||October 23, 2019|
|Court:||United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit|
Submitted October 16, 2019 [*]
NONPRECEDENTIAL DISPOSITION. (See Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure Rule 32.1)
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Western District of Wisconsin. No. 3:11-cr-79-bbc-1, Barbara B. Crabb, Judge .
Laura A. Przybylinski Finn, Attorney, Office of the United States Attorney, Madison, WI, for Plaintiff-Appellee
Larry D. Sullivan, Pro Se
Before WILLIAM J. BAUER, Circuit Judge, DIANE S. SYKES, Circuit Judge, DAVID F. HAMILTON, Circuit Judge
In 2012, defendant-appellant Larry D. Sullivan pleaded guilty to distributing an unspecified quantity of crack cocaine on April 19, 2011. The district court sentenced him to 168 months in prison. Sullivan did not appeal. In the following years, he filed several documents with the district court seeking a reduction in his sentence, but none were successful.
On March 12, 2019, Sullivan filed a motion in the district court seeking a reduced sentence under the terms of the First Step Act, which was signed into law on December 21, 2018. See Pub. L. 115, 391, 132 Stat. 5194 (2018). Sullivan contends in essence that, if he were sentenced today for the same offense, he would be eligible for a less severe sentence because of changes in the sentencing ranges under 21 U.S.C. § 841 and because one or more of his prior convictions that he says were used to enhance his sentencing range under § 841 would no longer qualify to trigger such enhancements. He has also argued that the criminal history calculation in his original presentence report had been incorrect.
The district court denied Sullivans request for relief, noting that he was not sentenced under any mandatory minimum sentence affected by the First Step Act and that he was properly classified as a
career offender under the Sentencing Guidelines.
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP